Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV20973, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20973    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 39

Jilianne Paladino-Boyd v. Contemporary Services Corporation

Case Number 20STCV20973

Motions to Compel Further Responses

Trial Setting Conference

            Plaintiff Jilianne Paladino-Boyd (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she attended a concert at the Hollywood Bowl on June 1, 2018, when she was assaulted by security guards.  Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant Contemporary Services Corporation (“Defendant”) to the following discovery requests: (1) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three (“RPDs”), (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”), and (3) Requests for Admission, Set Three (“RFAs”).  The Court rules as follows:

            RPD #113 – Granted.  Defendant has provided a code-compliant response, but apparently the response was misnumbered.  Defendant shall correct the numbering issue.

            RPD #114 – Granted.

            RPD #115 – Granted.

            RPD #116 – Granted.

            RPD #117 – Granted.

            RPD #118 – Granted.

RPD #119 – Granted.  Defendant has provided a code-compliant response, but apparently the response was misnumbered.  Defendant shall correct the numbering issue.

SROG #52 – Denied.  It is not relevant whether security guards not involved in the incident had valid guard cards.    

SROG #55 – Denied.  Evidence of remedial measures is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence under Evidence Code section 1151.

RFA #53 – Granted.  This RFA is relevant to the issues of notice and foreseeability. 

RFA #54 – Granted.  This RFA is relevant to the issues of notice and foreseeability. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RPDs is granted.  Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days and shall provide a dated verification form.  The Court finds that there was no substantial justification for the motion and orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel-of-record, Clark Hill LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,560 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days.

            2.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SROG is denied. 

            3.         Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFA is granted.  Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days and shall provide a dated verification form. 

            4.         The Court awards no sanctions for the motions to compel SROG and RFA because Plaintiff prevailed on one motion and Defendant prevailed on one motion.

            5.         The Court sets the following dates:

                        Final Status Conference:        __________, ___, at 9:00 a.m.

                        Trial:                                       __________, ___, at 9:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions deadlines shall be based on the new trial date. 

            6.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.